The problem is that that hasn't proved true historically. I'm trying to find the tweet, but I saw a stat recently said that teams with X% of the salary cap tied up in their top 5 players (as we would be after signing Jones and Mahomes) have never won the Super Bowl. It just puts too much strain on all of the other positions.

Of course, there's also a similar stat for QBs percent of the cap alone, and we have no choice but to do that with Pat...

We don't win a SB without Jones in that game. A first and 20m ain't enough to move the needle.

Would love for them to keep Jones, but don't know if it's feasible and financially sound to tie up $40 mil. per year in 2 D-Linemen. That seems like bad business. I know we like to piss on the Pats around here (deservedly so), but they would never do that and they are the modern example of how to try and do a 'dynasty' in football (well, that and the cheating, of course).

Probably makes more sense to tag and trade him and invest elsewhere in the roster. That said, I wouldn't just give him away. We need to get at LEAST a 1st and 3rd for him. Anything less and I would just tell the other teams to kick rocks and play him on the franchise tag this year and try again next year.

Or, if the value isn't there in a trade, you could always give him the money (as long as it's semi-reasonable) and try and fill in the rest of the roster with draft picks, veterans looking for a ring and cheap reclamation projects. The only problem with that strategy is you leave yourself VERY LITTLE room for error. Better hit on most of your draft picks and FA decisions if you elect to go that way. At least for the next few years, anyway . . . . . .

So it comes down to what's out there, what you can do with it and how much do you trust Veach to make the right decisions.

It would take a very dumb team offering an absurd amount of value to make me feel good about not keeping Chris Jones.

we might not of needed Jones to win the Superbowl if we had better LBs and DBs, those batted balls from jones were huge because our LBs can't cover very well, if Mathieu would not be needed t have to man up on the TEs could help elsewhere.

Option 3-whatever Veach decides bc I trust him.

Hope we can keep Chris but I understand if we deal him.

Signing Jones comes with more risk than if he's tagged/traded.

For KC to get value from a Jones signing, he's got to perform at an elite level for multiple years and he's got to stay healthy. If he doesn't do those things, it can spell disaster for the Chiefs. On the other hand, tagging/trading Jones for fair compensation gives KC flexibility, allowing them to invest in multiple positions, including the offensive line which is absolutely crucial in protecting our greatest asset.

KC doesn't have to draft a superstar to make tagging/trading worth it. They just have to draft adequately and make smart, low-cost free agent signings. You minimize risk by tagging/trading Jones. If KC had a crystal ball telling them that Jones will stay healthy for the next three years, and he'll perform just like he did this year when he was healthy, then yeah, you'd sign him. But there are no guarantees and the Chiefs cannot afford to take the risk of Jones under performing on his contract.

If the Chiefs feel like he can be a dependable piece for a future dynasty, they will lock him up without a second thought. It’s how Andy does business.

If these rumors that the FO are more down on him than indicated are accurate, they’ll trade him ala Peters and Ford.

At the end of the day, I trust Andy here.

Here’s the way I see it, and I may well be wrong.

The offense has the following pieces in place the next 2 seasons...

Mahomes
Kelce
Hill
Hardman
Fisher
Schwartz

That’s enough to continue being top 5 in scoring.

Teams will be forced to abandon the run more and more as the front 7 learns Dalys way to stopping opposing running games like they did in the last 8 games of the year.

Opposing offenses are going to need to throw the ball a lot to stay in games. We are going to have a group of young corners (maybe even playing 2 rookie corners a lot) so imo the best way to help them is to have a DL that can get pressure without blitzing.

In my opinion we extend Jones, cut Watkins (unless he is willing to take a sizable paycut [why would he?]) Wilson and Erving.

Now if Jones wants an overly exuberant amount of money, then tag and trade and take the extra 1st (trade has got to go to an NFC team) and look to free agency and the draft to fill the large void left by Jones.

But, ideally, we keep Jones. I think he just causes too much havoc unlike nearly any DL in the league.

And, for as many sacks as Watson takes, he's pretty damn elusive and is tough to bring down. IDK how many times I've watched Watson look dead to rights and escape and make a play.

From a business standpoint, you almost have to tag and trade as much as I hope they don't. A first isn't going to cut it though. I'd do it a first, 3rd and 5th

Hard to say without knowing what that $20m would be used for... what are some projections as to how that money would be spent?

Trading Jones was inevitable when we traded for Clark IMO.

Obviously we're just fans making guesses, but I'd personally put about $12m of it toward upgrading the LBers and $8m to upgrading the CBs.